Veterans Law Judge
Judge A. Ishizawar: BVA decisions and outcomes
From 2017 to 2026, Veterans Law Judge A. Ishizawar signed 7,748 Board decisions covering 15,412 condition issues. The judge granted 11.3% of those issues, denied 35.6% and remanded 49.9%. For the same mix of conditions, the rest of the Board granted 19.8% and remanded 46.9%, so this judge's grant rate is below the Board's and the remand rate is above it.
Decisions
7,748
2017–2026
Issues decided
15,412
One issue per condition per decision
Issues granted
11.3%
Board, same conditions: 19.8%
Issues remanded
49.9%
Board, same conditions: 46.9%
Judges do not choose their cases, and grant rates differ a lot by condition. “Board, same conditions” is what the rest of the Board decided for the same mix of conditions, so the comparison is fair to the judge's docket. This is not a ranking.
Conditions this judge decided most
Each row compares the judge's issues on one condition with the rest of the Board's issues on the same condition. Conditions with fewer than 20 of this judge's issues are left out, because a few decisions can swing the rate.
| Condition | Issues | Granted | Board granted | Remanded | Board remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knee impairment | 1,273 | 9.7% | 17.3% | 52.2% | 51.1% |
| Hearing loss | 853 | 11.4% | 19.6% | 38.9% | 34.5% |
| Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) | 718 | 20.2% | 29.0% | 40.1% | 38.1% |
| Degenerative arthritis of the spine (spondylosis) | 545 | 11.0% | 20.7% | 44.4% | 46.1% |
| Tinnitus | 538 | 23.6% | 39.7% | 31.4% | 22.7% |
| Sleep apnea syndromes (obstructive central mixed) | 476 | 17.6% | 26.3% | 56.7% | 50.3% |
| Hypertension | 468 | 10.9% | 17.2% | 50.0% | 48.7% |
| Intervertebral disc syndrome | 407 | 8.8% | 18.7% | 53.1% | 48.0% |
| Migraine | 346 | 13.6% | 30.3% | 51.7% | 42.1% |
| Hip impairment | 332 | 5.4% | 14.4% | 61.1% | 53.7% |
| Shoulder impairment | 312 | 7.7% | 14.4% | 50.6% | 53.1% |
| Ankle impairment | 311 | 9.6% | 16.9% | 55.3% | 50.4% |
| Diabetes mellitus | 303 | 11.6% | 20.0% | 43.6% | 40.0% |
| Peripheral nerve disorders | 280 | 5.4% | 20.7% | 63.6% | 51.6% |
| Major depressive disorder | 212 | 23.1% | 34.7% | 42.0% | 34.1% |
Judge A. Ishizawar's decisions by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 692 | 15.8% | 40.9% | 58.2% |
| 2018 | 981 | 21.5% | 39.2% | 62.1% |
| 2019 | 984 | 19.3% | 43.7% | 60.9% |
| 2020 | 854 | 24.4% | 48.5% | 51.8% |
| 2021 | 875 | 23.9% | 48.5% | 43.2% |
| 2022 | 716 | 23.5% | 41.3% | 56.0% |
| 2023 | 699 | 18.6% | 38.2% | 58.4% |
| 2024 | 656 | 22.4% | 42.2% | 49.4% |
| 2025 | 862 | 23.5% | 52.6% | 41.2% |
| 2026 | 429 | 33.3% | 43.1% | 37.8% |
Why the Board granted or denied issues in Judge A. Ishizawar's decisions
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established154
- Service connection established44
- In-service noise exposure conceded36
- Continuity of symptomatology since service31
- Caused by the service-connected disability24
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service15
- Already at the maximum schedular rating13
- Symptoms approximated criteria for 70% rating11
Most common reasons in denials
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim408
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service299
- Service records negative or silent294
- No current diagnosis289
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis182
- Current diagnosis established81
- No continuity of symptomatology63
- Already at the maximum schedular rating40
Numbers are decisions that gave the reason. Reasons are short phrases extracted by AI from each decision; common wordings of the same reason are grouped. Benefit of the doubt is reported above.
Recent Judge A. Ishizawar decisions
Granted
Prognosis of bilateral foot disability supported by VA treatment records.; In-service injury documented by Veteran's testimony and lay statements.; Private medical opinion from Dr. C.H. provided adequate rationale linking current disability to in-service injury.
Inadequate VA examiner opinion; More probative private medical opinion; Evidence of in-service onset and chronicity
Bound by favorable AOJ finding of service connection; Nexus established for back disability; Current diagnosis consistent with in-service event
Denied
No in-service diagnosis or treatment for diabetes mellitus noted in service treatment records.; Available medical records do not reflect diagnosis or medication for diabetes mellitus until 2011/2013.; VA examiners opined diabetes mellitus, type II, was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service.
Veteran's reported symptoms varied significantly over time.; VA examination found no characteristic prostrating attacks or impact on work.; Contemporaneous objective medical evidence, including VA treatment records and the VA examiner's findings, was found more credible.; Symptoms not shown to be completely prostrating or prolonged.; Veteran's continued employment as a bus driver and career change demonstrate economic adaptability, not severe economic inadaptability.
Mechanical application of rating schedule to audiometric findings does not establish entitlement to a compensable rating.; Veteran's contention regarding a 10% rating overlooked correct application of rating schedule for single-ear hearing loss.; Impairment is contemplated by rating criteria; no extraschedular consideration warranted.
Research your Judge A. Ishizawar case
Narrow by year, judge, evidence or secondary condition, read the decisions, and export a research memo.
How these numbers are calculated
- Issue rates count each condition the Board decided in a decision once, by the outcome of that issue. A decision can grant one issue and deny another.
- The yearly table counts decisions: a decision with a granted issue and a denied issue appears in both columns, so a row can add up to more than 100%.
- "Board, same conditions" weights the rest of the Board's grant and remand rate for each condition by how many of this judge's issues were on that condition. It does not adjust for evidence, hearing type or representation.
- Judges are identified from the signature on each decision. This page is a statistical summary, not an evaluation of any judge.
- The data comes from CaseScribe's AI extraction of public BVA decisions (2017–2026) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.